If tomorrow the Taiwanese held a referendum on Taiwanese independence and a majority voted to be an independent nation (IE, not part of China).What would your take on it be?

I would stand there like an idiot not knowing what to do. On one hand I grew up with the idea that Taiwan is part of China, we are not the Koreans and this kind of separation is only temporary. However I love my Taiwanese brothers and sisters, and would not like to see war happening to them. This is why I place my hope on peaceful unification, and hope that the idea that Taiwan is populated by the Chinese will not die. Because when their Chinese identity dies then there will never be unification.

I just want to point out one more thing about why China is acting like this. This is I think the most important part...she wants and can take the Spratley islands because...she can. That is the reason why people through out history do whatever they do. I personally do not agree with that type of reasoning, but shit happens.

I would stand there like an idiot not knowing what to do. On one hand I grew up with the idea that Taiwan is part of China, we are not the Koreans and this kind of separation is only temporary. However I love my Taiwanese brothers and sisters, and would not like to see war happening to them. This is why I place my hope on peaceful unification, and hope that the idea that Taiwan is populated by the Chinese will not die. Because when their Chinese identity dies then there will never be unification.

I understand the torn feelings but as a westerner, to me, the sole authority on what happens to Taiwan is the Taiwanese people. The island itself is worthless, the only thing that matters is what the people there want to do.Now, China isn't the only one country who doesn't really acknowledge that, Argentina would be another in the club but still, I for one hope the Chinese people as a whole will see the wisdom in letting the Taiwanese do whatever they want because there is no surer recipe to push the Taiwanese away than to try to force them into something they don't agree with.

Quote:

I just want to point out one more thing about why China is acting like this. This is I think the most important part...she wants and can take the Spratley islands because...she can. That is the reason why people through out history do whatever they do. I personally do not agree with that type of reasoning, but shit happens.

This is the crux of the problem though.Somehow in the 21st century we more or less implicitly agreed, globally, that borders ought to stay like they are now and that using force to change those borders was not an acceptable method.

Now, I know this is not an ironclad rule that hasn't been breached a few times in the last few decades but historically you can see quite the trend. Pretty much no one invades another country to take their territory anymore.

Those exceptions are usually mostly irrelevant (on the global scale) countries and the scope of it very limited.

Now, if China, as a future superpower, starts acting like it's the 19th century again... well... that's a prospect that pleases no global citizen.

I would stand there like an idiot not knowing what to do. On one hand I grew up with the idea that Taiwan is part of China, we are not the Koreans and this kind of separation is only temporary. However I love my Taiwanese brothers and sisters, and would not like to see war happening to them. This is why I place my hope on peaceful unification, and hope that the idea that Taiwan is populated by the Chinese will not die. Because when their Chinese identity dies then there will never be unification.

I understand the torn feelings but as a westerner, to me, the sole authority on what happens to Taiwan is the Taiwanese people. The island itself is worthless, the only thing that matters is what the people there want to do.Now, China isn't the only one country who doesn't really acknowledge that, Argentina would be another in the club but still, I for one hope the Chinese people as a whole will see the wisdom in letting the Taiwanese do whatever they want because there is no surer recipe to push the Taiwanese away than to try to force them into something they don't agree with.

Quote:

I just want to point out one more thing about why China is acting like this. This is I think the most important part...she wants and can take the Spratley islands because...she can. That is the reason why people through out history do whatever they do. I personally do not agree with that type of reasoning, but shit happens.

This is the crux of the problem though.Somehow in the 21st century we more or less implicitly agreed, globally, that borders ought to stay like they are now and that using force to change those borders was not an acceptable method.

Now, I know this is not an ironclad rule that hasn't been breached a few times in the last few decades but historically you can see quite the trend. Pretty much no one invades another country to take their territory anymore.

Those exceptions are usually mostly irrelevant (on the global scale) countries and the scope of it very limited.

Now, if China, as a future superpower, starts acting like it's the 19th century again... well... that's a prospect that pleases no global citizen.

My biggest confusion on the Taiwanese question is that since when did this independence happen? This type of thing would never happen if the original KMTs were in power. Old Chiang must be rolling in his grave knowing that the Chinese people in Taiwan want to separate Taiwan from China.

On the idea of the 19th century way of thinking, I won't be shocked if countries still do that, in fact they still do. The only change that I see is that now people do it in a more under handed way. Instead of, I have muskets and cannons and you are all savages, let me rule over you, we have the smile and the dagger. I highly doubt China in the future will be a 19th century European power. Nothing in China's history can be related to the Europeans.

The people of Taiwan could very well see themselves as ethnic Chinese, but still wish for independence for any number of unrelated reasons. Some of them could be economic, others might be social... you get the idea. In much the same way that those who live in America may maintain their Chinese ethnicity but not call for the United States to be a part of China.

Well we're splitting hairs of what constitutes a country. South Sudan is majority 'black' Africans, who also happen to be majority Christian, while the North are more Arabic and Muslim. Sudan used to be part of Egypt. There is a good movie with Charlton Heston about that.

All goes to show, things like ethnicity, religion, resources, all are used and manipulated by various forces to oppress or unite.----

One wonders, what would China's progress be like today if the UK had decided not to give back Hong Kong?

While he did use unnecessary loaded words one ought to be a fool to disregard his main point.China believes it was at the top of the world for thousands of years (for good reasons mostly). The last few centuries of notbeingontop being shameful and the need for China to resume its rightful place as the top dog of the world is a sentiment that is to be found in China. You can't just ignore it and wipe it under the carpet...

It's also bullshit. China has been conquered multiple times in that time, so for the modern Chinese to claim continuity with the China of 5000 years ago is farcical.

GaoZu wrote:

Sure China controls America due to the debt holdings, however if America doesn't pay then China will get the short end of the stick and be out billions.

It's actually worse than that for China. The US is a sovereign currency issuing nation, thus it can never be in the situation where it can't pay the debt. On top of that they're treasury bonds so China can't call them in prior to maturity. China's been had and hard, the only thing mitigating that is that the US doesn't get anything out of it.

If I had been in charge of that I'd have given Hong Kong to Taiwan. After all the original treaty specified that Hong Kong be returned to a country that no longer exists. The Republic of China, as the oldest still extant successor state, logically had the stronger claim. Alternatively just hang on to it on the grounds that the other party to the treaty no longer exists and thus the current owner (i.e the British) have the strongest claim.

It's also bullshit. China has been conquered multiple times in that time, so for the modern Chinese to claim continuity with the China of 5000 years ago is farcical.

Aside the potential influx of the Yuan dynasty, the ethnic humans living there today are essentially no different than the ones who were there 4000 years ago. They've been conquered a hundred times - normally by people who look just like them, though - and they're still here. Where are the others? Continuity is inarguable, just like it is for Indians and Egyptians, and for the most part Mesopotamians. I've never known a Chinese (whom I knew well enough to make such observations) who didn't at some level manifest that known connection to millennia worth of cultural background. History isn't necessarily about your current masters.

It's also bullshit. China has been conquered multiple times in that time, so for the modern Chinese to claim continuity with the China of 5000 years ago is farcical.

Aside the potential influx of the Yuan dynasty, the ethnic humans living there today are essentially no different than the ones who were there 4000 years ago. They've been conquered a hundred times - normally by people who look just like them, though - and they're still here.

And the Romans looked much like the Iceni, what's your point?

Quote:

Where are the others? Continuity is inarguable, just like it is for Indians and Egyptians, and for the most part Mesopotamians. I've never known a Chinese (whom I knew well enough to make such observations) who didn't at some level manifest that known connection to millennia worth of cultural background. History isn't necessarily about your current masters.

And it's incredibly hard to ignore the connection of modern European cultures to the ancient Romans and Greeks, so again, what's your point?

I used to be a member of an Asian foods meetup group and every single time like clockwork there were self appointed ambassadors to China in the group.

A common theme was that china was hot stuff for thousands of years and that the last couple hundred years has been an anomaly and that china is going to regain the throne soon. And they were talking about past accomplishments like they personally were responsible for them. Think for example a Greek person saying how great he is because of well Alexander the Great.

And many of them did have the 19th century mindset that once China gets powerful militarily it should get back all sorts of land that it was historically China's in ancient times. Some of them were upset that "China had missed it's chance" since as someone pointed out some posts ago, conquering and taking over territory is frowned upon these days.

Anyway, Chinese hegemony and tribalism. It turned out it was not something I liked to keep talking about during dinner.

If I had been in charge of that I'd have given Hong Kong to Taiwan. After all the original treaty specified that Hong Kong be returned to a country that no longer exists. The Republic of China, as the oldest still extant successor state, logically had the stronger claim. Alternatively just hang on to it on the grounds that the other party to the treaty no longer exists and thus the current owner (i.e the British) have the strongest claim.

Neither of those were options. The fresh water supply for Hong Kong came from mainland China and the Chinese declined to extend the British lease to either the water or Hong Kong.

It's also bullshit. China has been conquered multiple times in that time, so for the modern Chinese to claim continuity with the China of 5000 years ago is farcical.

Aside the potential influx of the Yuan dynasty, the ethnic humans living there today are essentially no different than the ones who were there 4000 years ago. They've been conquered a hundred times - normally by people who look just like them, though - and they're still here.

And the Romans looked much like the Iceni, what's your point?

Quote:

Where are the others? Continuity is inarguable, just like it is for Indians and Egyptians, and for the most part Mesopotamians. I've never known a Chinese (whom I knew well enough to make such observations) who didn't at some level manifest that known connection to millennia worth of cultural background. History isn't necessarily about your current masters.

And it's incredibly hard to ignore the connection of modern European cultures to the ancient Romans and Greeks, so again, what's your point?

It's difficult for me to understand why this begs explanation.

They are the *same people* who occupied that land 4k years ago. Physically similar, culturally similar, spiritually similar....in fact, the only non-continuous feature of that area of the world is their governments, and even most of them were Chinese. Unless you're defining the term "continuity" expressly in terms of specific government, of course. In which case, nobody anywhere can claim as much as 300 years of "continuity." That's not how I define the term.

If I had been in charge of that I'd have given Hong Kong to Taiwan. After all the original treaty specified that Hong Kong be returned to a country that no longer exists. The Republic of China, as the oldest still extant successor state, logically had the stronger claim. Alternatively just hang on to it on the grounds that the other party to the treaty no longer exists and thus the current owner (i.e the British) have the strongest claim.

Neither of those were options. The fresh water supply for Hong Kong came from mainland China and the Chinese declined to extend the British lease to either the water or Hong Kong.

The lease to the island itself is besides the point since the argument would be that the PRC lacked a legitimate claim. As for the water you build desalination plants. Not cheap I'll admit, but infrastructure never is.

SuperDave wrote:

It's difficult for me to understand why this begs explanation.

They are the *same people* who occupied that land 4k years ago. Physically similar, culturally similar, spiritually similar....in fact, the only non-continuous feature of that area of the world is their governments, and even most of them were Chinese. Unless you're defining the term "continuity" expressly in terms of specific government, of course. In which case, nobody anywhere can claim as much as 300 years of "continuity." That's not how I define the term.

Well if you're going to define it that way then logically most of western Europe should be claiming continuity with ancient Rome and Greece. Roman roads, Roman aqueducts, Roman law, concrete, it's all still in use. The Roman religion still dominates. Ethnically most of the people south of the Danube and west of Germany and Turkey are descended from Romans or Greeks. None of those countries, not even the Italians claim Roman achievements as their own. Why? Because the countries that occupy those areas have changed radically over the intervening two millennia, it would be absurd to claim continuity with a state whose citizens would scarcely recognise what's evolved from it. Yet you see the Chinese making equivalent claims all the time for some reason. Here's the thing though, if China truly is substantially similar to its ancient counterpart, that isn't something to be proud of as it would indicate an appalling level of cultural stasis.

One relatively recent and positive change for China's significant 'middle class' is the concept of international tourism. Chinese tourists now make up a significant percentage of visitors to London and Paris for example. Even here in Cairo, when I go to the museum its packed with Chinese package tours. The more they see of the world, the more it will alter rose coloured perceptions shaped by government policy.

The newest country created most recently was South Sudan, and it cost about a million lives and decades of war.

As I said it's not an ironclad rule, but it's an implicit agreement regardless.Just compare the mindset of say medieval Europe and the 21st century.In the first the concept of conquering territory through force WAS the standard and it was done all the time. Right now the standard is to keep borders as they are but as all standards there are exceptions.

Quote:

My biggest confusion on the Taiwanese question is that since when did this independence happen?

Taiwan has been living separately from China for 64 years now. The longer the separation the greater the cultural delta between both countries.The fact that that separation is based on immensely huge cultural differences (communism vs capitalism) and a bit later democracy doesn't help. Those are some pretty big gaps to bridge.

Dystopia:

Quote:

It's also bullshit. China has been conquered multiple times in that time, so for the modern Chinese to claim continuity with the China of 5000 years ago is farcical.

I don't get that... Historical background is immensely important and you can't just wipe 5000 years of history just because that 5000 years is not a continuous government...

Chinese people grow in Chinese culture and part of that culture is the history of their ancestors who lived there.

Quote:

Well if you're going to define it that way then logically most of western Europe should be claiming continuity with ancient Rome and Greece.

Well isn't that exactly what is being done in Europe?Every history book in European classrooms goes at least all the way back to ancient Greece and how they are the fundament of modern Europe then goes all the way to the modern country with an inevitable stop at the Roman empire and its cultural and scientific achievements...

A fascinating, to me, example of that would be Switzerland where the French speaking part of the country descend from the romanized Helvetes (spoke latin, adopted Roman culture) and the German speaking part of the country descend from an invading Germanic tribe called the Allamans. IMHO you can still see those different roots show all the way to nowadays cultural differences between both part of the country (the locally infamous Röstigraben: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6stigraben).

Now, no one is saying "We are the Greeks" or "We are the Romans" because we weren't, but their culture is the basis of ours. But you can be damn sure the Italians think of Roman history as their own history and the Greeks think of Ancient Greek history as their own. As such I don't see why the notion that modern Chinese people invoke ancient Chinese history as their own is such a weird concept here...

The lease to the island itself is besides the point since the argument would be that the PRC lacked a legitimate claim.

Why? They are the government of China, which leased it to Britain. Your anology is akin to every government change invalidates running contracts. That seems a tad crazy wouldn't you agree? Or are you maintaining China should have been under the heel of the Kuomintang? How does that work? Is the USA a rogue crown colony?

Dystopia wrote:

Yet you see the Chinese making equivalent claims all the time for some reason. Here's the thing though, if China truly is substantially similar to its ancient counterpart, that isn't something to be proud of as it would indicate an appalling level of cultural stasis.

Nonsense and I fully expect you know it.

We could look at England, France, Japan etc. These countries do feel connected to the predecessors of the Middle ages. Yet you rant and rave because China feels connected to ancient China by coming up with a hilariously ridiculous analogy.

My biggest confusion on the Taiwanese question is that since when did this independence happen? This type of thing would never happen if the original KMTs were in power. Old Chiang must be rolling in his grave knowing that the Chinese people in Taiwan want to separate Taiwan from China.

Is this a joke or is it just PRC historical revisionism? I'm far from an expert on Chinese or Taiwanese history but I'm pretty sure KMT were the ones who fought against the CPC during the Chinese civil war and then withdrew to Taiwan and named it the Republic of China. To say that Taiwan didn't claim independance is simply incorrect. They fought an entire fucking war over control of the country, then withdrew to Taiwan and claimed that territory as their own, a claim that was recognized by the rest of the world until the early 70s. The KMTs never pushed the issue recently because of the "One China" policy that seems quite similar to the bullshit PRC is trying to pull today with the Spratleys/Scarborough (i.e. "This territory is ours because we say so.")

My biggest confusion on the Taiwanese question is that since when did this independence happen? This type of thing would never happen if the original KMTs were in power. Old Chiang must be rolling in his grave knowing that the Chinese people in Taiwan want to separate Taiwan from China.

Is this a joke or is it just PRC historical revisionism?

No, I'd say he's actually right here.

Taiwan did as yet not claim independence. Both Taiwan or PRC claim leadership over a unified China, thus it's clear that both want to re-unify China. It's a pipedream, any romantic notion is silly, it's quite a bit more pronounced than the GDR/DDR split, but clearly the sentiments are still there.

Independence would be giving up these claims. So the KMT did not claim independance from the PRC, they denied the legality of the PRC. Think of the KMT as the government of China in exile.

That said, as far as I understand the KMT is the only Taiwanese group still sticking to this line. Most Taiwanese parties are aiming for cutting the ties with China. If that happens; expect China to go apeshit rhetorically. I'd say they are wise enough to realize military action is impossible, but every other thing will be tried en enacted.

My biggest confusion on the Taiwanese question is that since when did this independence happen? This type of thing would never happen if the original KMTs were in power. Old Chiang must be rolling in his grave knowing that the Chinese people in Taiwan want to separate Taiwan from China.

Is this a joke or is it just PRC historical revisionism?

No, I'd say he's actually right here.

Taiwan did not claim independence. Both Taiwan or PRC claim leadership over a unified China, thus it's clear that both want to re-unify China. It's a pipedream, any romantic notion is silly, it's quite a bit more pronounced than the GDR/DDR split, but clearly the sentiments are still there.

But independence would be giving up these claims. So the KMT did not claim independance from the PRC, they denied the legality of the PRC. Think of the KMT as the government of China in exile.

So at what point did the KMT say "We're part of the PRC" and no longer its own/the rightful government? I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm trying to figure out if I've got it all wrong. I'm missing the difference between "independant" and "a different government I don't like took over so I moved somewhere else and kept running the government"

So at what point did the KMT say "We're part of the PRC" and no longer its own/the rightful government?

As I said, the KMT says the Communists are the illegitimate governement. That said; by now the KMT has let go of most of that claim and are willing to re-unify as soon as "sufficient" Democratic and Economic reform has been enacted*. The problem is that will take a few decennia more and the people will have grown apart even more. as I said, I doubt they will ever reunite.

*Not making this up, this is the official Pan-Blue line.

Quote:

I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm trying to figure out if I've got it all wrong. I'm missing the difference between "independant" and "a different government I don't like took over so I moved somewhere else and kept running the government"

If you are independent you are a different country, which makes it clear you do not want any reunification. Hence Taiwan so far has not claimed independence. Whereas a government in exile has as main purpose to return and retake sovereignity.

I'm not saying this is anywhere near pragmatic, but it's the truth, Taiwan never claimed Independence and in fact it's a very big deal in Taiwan.

Official moderation notice.

This is somewhat delayed, since I wasn't originally certain how to interpret the cultural context of this. After consulting with other moderators and following the discussion here, it seems evident that this was used as a racial slur. In light of your history of such conduct, this is an Official Warning.

1. Some of you who doesn't really know anything about Chinese history should just refrain from posting here.

2. EricP, put on your glasses and try to read what I posted again. Did I say Taiwan said they were part of PRC? Both the KMT and the CCP consider themselves the legit government of mainland China. When Chiang escaped to Taiwan he was preparing to retake the mainland sometime in the future. Even his fucking grave is on a temporary location, just so when they do take China, they can move his body to China.

3. Dystopia, did you know that England recognized the PRC in 1950? Did you know that that means England recognizes that the PRC as the true government of China? So who the hell do you think they will return HK to?

4. Dystopia, this is unrelated to what is happening right now but I am going to answer your question. Name the oldest civilizations in the world, then figure out which one kept most of their culture...oh yea none of them except China. We kept our language, our customs, and our food. What did the Italian keep? What did the Egyptians keep? How about the Mayans or Incans? If you want to base civilizations on governments then good god America has been fucked every 4 years.

5. DC, yea the current official KMT policy is that they have forgone the idea that they are the legit government of mainland China. It was only in the late 80s and 90s that they have made this into policy. This was all due to that snake bastard Lee Tung Hui who still probably think that Taiwan is part of Japan. I cannot wait for that paper hanging SOB to die.

The level of exceptionalism we muster is toxic and leads to us being a horribly corrupt country responsible for truly terrible things. Think of how we treat our poor, America is a horrifying place. Just want to caution you that in the direction of cultural exceptionalism lies a whole lot of dirty laundry.

Gaozu, i'd say the amount of factual inaccuracies in this thread is very small. There's a lot of bickering about (percieved) status of governments (China is evil, no it isn't/Japan never appolgized, yes they did, whyy do people go on about this etc. etc.), but that's why this forum is here.

Even though I find Dystopia's position a bit of a caricature (he really doesn't like China), it's still a discussion.

Fidel, Who cares about the poor if you can make money off them? Your name is so confusing, are you a Socialist Capitalist?! But yea, the Chinese culture is long and rich, but who knows how many fucked up things happened for that culture.

In the end all this talk means nothing. Like I said before, if China really want the Paracels, Spratley, or Diaoyu, she can just take it, because she can. No strong country ever need a legit reason to take things. I mean shit she can just make up shit and take the islands. No matter how "modern" we are, or how civilized we are. Humans are still inherently savages who take things simply because he/she has the bigger stick. I am not as idealistic as a lot of you who believe in the universal acceptance of law and I guess fairness. If I am ever asked should one country attack and conquer another country, I will just ask who has more guns. If the attacking country has more guns then they should do what they want.

Yet human history could be resumed to a long quest to make this old adage untrue.

We started with small tribes claiming might makes right and we are now at continental powers claiming might makes right, but the greater story is that the realm where might makes right dwindled from "every interaction between every human" to "few interactions between nations".Someday, probably not during my lifetime, mankind will finally kill that murderous adage entirely and find a way to solve all conflicts according to the rule of law and not some primitive stone age rule set.

GaoZu just personified what I was hinting at, what makes the rest of the world fearful of a rising China. A new superpower who, ethically, is stuck in the 18th century. That ought to scare a lot of people on that side of the planet.

I'm not certain it's 'might makes right' more 'might will do as it wishes' - moral imperative is largely left unanswered.

But that's the whole point.

Might does not do as it wishes anymore. Stronger people largely do not go around with a big stick caving other people's head in for their supermarket loot. Cities do not raise armies to loot the countryside.Nations mostly do not invade other nations either.If you look at history as a whole "might will do as it wishes" started as an all encompassing truth but is now relegated to being an exception to the rule. We humans made some good solid progress on that front, denying that by throwing platitudes like those stone age sayings doesn't impress me much.